Tag Archives: adult social care funding

It is now a day since the White Paper came out, and the response from the media, social care organisations and rival political parties has been quick and, in the main, fairly critical.

The White Paper was given short shrift by most of the mainstream media. While its aims of creating a National Care Service were seen as laudable, many focused on the delays to making changes, how it would be paid for – and by whom – and the lingering “Death Tax”.

Those that gave the White Paper the most enthusiastic welcome tended to be the organisations that are government-backed. To paraphrase Mandy Rice-Davies, well, they would, wouldn’t they?

Charities and third sector organisations seem to have generally given the White Paper a good welcome, but again question where the money will come from for it.

Meanwhile, think tank the King’s Fund – an advocate of the partnership approach before the paper came out – welcomed the ‘ambitious’ plan, but questioned where the money to do it would come from, calling for detailed proposals urgently.

I reckon the King’s Fund was spot-on.

Now I’ve had time to reflect, it seems clearer that the White Paper has been geared to the election – it is big on ideas, but short on detail. Style over substance, if you will.

I really like the idea of the National Care Service – its aims are laudable and it is something to be aspired to. In an ideal world it would be here already.

But – and it’s a big but – I cannot work out how it would be paid for, without having to raise taxes, impose compulsory levies on the public or take money from other budgets. Nether, I suspect, judging by the content of the paper, do the government.

Also, given that the original aim of its preceding green paper was to address the funding of adult social care – with the hope that it would get rid of the current means-testing system – it has singularly failed to do it.

Indeed, the whole question of funding was fudged, with a call for another commission to be set up to investigate the best ways. Evidently the government didn’t want to be associated with any new taxes before the election, so has kicked it into the next parliament.

As a result, the system will creak on, as it has done for years, hated by many. A chance for genuine – and needed – reform of the funding system has been lost, sacrificed at the altar of electioneering.

After what seems like an eternity, the adult social care funding White Paper will finally be published tomorrow. So what will be in it? Here is my bit of crystal ball gazing…

Firstly, it will lay out Labour’s plans for a National Care Service that provides clear national entitlements for everyone, rather than the current postcode lottery. This was first mentioned in last year’s green paper and the idea at least was widely welcomed. The White Paper should flesh out exactly what that might entail and the funding for it.

The free personal care at home policy will also be in there. This has been championed by Gordon Brown and there isn’t a chance it will be dropped now, although the timing of its introduction may be put back until after the election.

In terms of funding, I expect that a ‘partnership’ model – where the state pays a portion of care costs and the service user pays the remainder – will be proposed. In the debate over funding, this seems to have garnered the most support and is something of a ‘middle’ way – and less politically divisive than, say, putting a levy on the estate of every person.

That option is a non-starter because the Conservatives branded it the “Death Tax”. Leaving aside whether it is a good idea or not, the negative publicity already around it would make implementing it political suicide.

Funding will probably be the most controversial part of this; while it is widely accepted that the current adult social care system needs to change, funding it is the tricky bit. For instance, the free personal care at home policy has been consistently lambasted because nobody believes the government’s estimate that it will cost £670 million – some say it could be more than £1 billion.

In addition, setting up a National Care Service, and contributing to everyone’s care costs, will cost billions. In a time where government departments – including the Department of Health – are scrabbling around trying to save billions, you wonder where the money would come from.

And then there is the election. The white paper will probably become a large spoke of the election campaign, which will be a bad thing. As I’ve mentioned previously, cross-party consensus is needed if the best solution for the public is to be reached. With an election, and all the ‘our policies good, your policies bad’ mudslinging that comes with it, this is out of the question.

Of course, the election also means that the White Paper may come to nought if Labour is ousted from power. The Tories have suggested they may go for another consultation before they do anything. If there is a hung parliament, who knows what will happen to it?

So, with that in mind, tomorrow’s White Paper may make promises, but it is by no means certain that essential reform will come to the sector just yet.

So, Conservative shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley has pointed out that the government’s plans for funding residential care doesn’t include the ‘hotel’ costs of it.

For those of us that have followed this closely, this is not a revelation. This debate is about paying for care – board and lodging doesn’t come into it. When the green paper on adult social care funding was released last June, some people in social care pointed out that the proposals wouldn’t mark the end of people having to sell their house to pay for care. Interestingly, at the time, this was largely ignored.

Even in Scotland people in residential care have to pay ‘hotel’ costs – something which isn’t pointed out as often as it should be when people in England moan about ‘free’ care north of the border – and older people do still in some cases have to sell their house to pay for it.

But with the government set to shelve plans for the “Death Tax” this week, according to the Guardian, this seems to be the latest attempt to derail plans for reform.

Again, Lansley seems to be at the heart of this. While this smacks of another attempt at cheap political points-scoring ahead of the looming election, it does raise (albeit in a not-too-helpful way) a legitimate point.

One of the aims of any reform of adult social care funding, according to government messages when the green paper came out, is to eliminate people having to sell their homes. The options listed in the paper didn’t seem to do that.

It is still a problem – many voters see the practice as unfair and penalising those who have worked to own their own homes and leave an inheritance – and if it isn’t addressed many will see any white paper as a failure.

However, the green paper was only a consultation, and the white paper – apparently coming this week – may have a solution. We shall wait and see – and expect Labour’s opponents to seize upon it if it doesn’t.

Nevertheless, there are hopes that the government’s white paper on adult social care funding – promised to come out before the election – will address this.

While last summer’s green paper on the future of adult social care funding had some useful suggestions on providing better information for self funders, as well as making the care system easier to access and navigate, it still failed to address one of the most vexed points; people selling their houses to pay for care.

In addition, the government’s free personal care at home bill would go some way to addressing the concerns of older people paying for care, but it only helps those above the threshold for social care funding with high needs and who still live in their own home.

The green paper outlined several options to pay for care costs, from insurance to a mix of state and self funding, but none covered paying for the accommodation costs of residential care, which can still mount up if someone is in care for several years. In that situation, selling their house is still an option.

If nothing else, Counsel and Care’s report is a useful reminder of the main concerns of older people in the care industry and if the government does address these issues, it could leave a long-lasting positive legacy.

Keywords, however, are ‘if’ and ‘could’; if the white paper comes out before the election and if it makes it through parliament. Could, in that nobody knows yet what conclusions the government has come to.